How can Government create work given the budget deficit?

There is a discussion running on a green party e-list about the Green Wage Subsidy - a plan to stimulate work in the green sector of the economy in order to tackle unemployment directly.

One disputant argues that it is not cost-free
My answer: GWS permits the claimant to take her benefit money into green work.
The money would be paid in any case, but on condition that the recipient /does no work/ (beyone the 16 hours allowed under Earnings Disregard).
Therefore there is no extra cost to the Benefits Agency.
I will repeat that, for avoidance of doubt:
The money would be paid in any case. there is no extra cost to the Benefits Agency in the short term.

In fact, in that the recipient will not be taking the time of the benefits agency employees in filling forms, having interviews and making futile applications for non-existent jobs, there would be a saving, but this would be offset by the cost of the tribunals. Depending on how these costs balance out, there might be a small net cost at this stage.

However, this net cost would be offset by the advantages to the economy from the GWS:

1. Increased tax revenue from the green operations that are benefiting
from GWS.
2. Increased money in the local economy resulting from extra spending
power of those provided with a job by GWS.
3. Increased money in the local economy resulting from extra spending
power families lifted out of fuel poverty by insulation projects
4. Balance of payments improvements arising from less imports of carbon
energy sources
5. Qualitative improvements in health and social well-being arising
from GWS - not least in improved visual amenity from community
tidy-ups, litter picking and street furniture decoration.

The truly significant cost of GWS would come at the end of the recession, when it would be expected that the dole queues would start to shrink and social security payments to fall.
At that point, conventional economists would argue for GWS to be withdrawn.
The Green Party on the other hand would argue for retention and extension of the scheme, since that is what Citizen's Income is. We would be arguing for retention of a scheme that is already in place (pole position in other words) and one that moreover is well regarded by citizens who have benefited directly and indirectly from GWS.

I am genuinely puzzled at the opposition from within the Green Party against a scheme that:

1. Saves people from the unpleasantness and poverty implicit in
unemployment
2. Provides a cost-free stimulus to drag people out of poverty
3. Stimulates the green sector of the economy
4. saves energy and CO2 emissions
5. prepares the ground for the introduction of a full CI
6. Gives our speakers a specific and uniquely green party policy to
introduce into the national debate, a policy that helps people and
directly addresses inequality, poverty, recession, and the #Occupy
movement's concern with the totally unacceptable levels of youth
unemployment.
7. Generates a feel-good feeling in our natural allies in the green
sector of the economy.

If anyone can clear up my puzzlement, I would be very grateful.

If you are reading this, and find yourself in agreement, please respond even if only to say "I agree", since these e-list discussions often give a platform to people who oppose specific proposals, while those who may be in agreement often say nowt.